Health & Fitness

COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care in the early months of the pandemic were subject to a significantly higher burden of delirium and coma than is typically found in patients with acute respiratory failure. A new study finds that choice of sedative medications and curbs on family visitation played a role in increasing acute brain dysfunction for these patients.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XqgzJD

Google, which is neither a governmental agency nor a health organization, is nonetheless acting as such in their latest push to provide “accurate and timely information on COVID-19 vaccines.”¹ In a blog post published December 10, 2020, Dr. Karen DeSalvo, Google’s chief health officer, and Kristie Canegallo, the company’s vice president of trust and safety, detailed Google’s plans for COVID-19 vaccine promotion.

Since the start of the outbreak, Google has introduced more than 200 products and initiatives, including an exposure notification contact tracing system, which aims to alert individuals via their cellphones if they’ve been exposed to someone with COVID-19;² the potential privacy violations of this technology are immense, and it’s only one such example.

Now, Google notes,³ “As the world turns its focus to the deployment of vaccines, the type of information people need will evolve.” With communities being “vaccinated at an unprecedented pace and scale,” Google intends to share “information to educate the public, including addressing vaccine misperceptions and hesitance, and helping to surface official guidance to people on when, where and how to get vaccinated.”

Starting in the United Kingdom, with plans to roll out to other countries as more vaccines are authorized, Google will launch a new search feature so that whenever someone searches for information on COVID-19 vaccines, they’ll be given a list of authorized vaccines in their area along with information panels on each vaccine.

They’ve also teamed up with the Australian Science Media Centre (SMC) to spread more fact-checking propaganda as part of their COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub — a disturbing revelation considering SMC’s long history of corporate and government bias.

Google and Industry Front Group AusSMC Team Up

To help influence the media through its search engine, Google’s News Initiative gave $1.5 million toward the creation of the COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub as well as to support fact-checking. According to Google:⁴

“Led by the Australian Science Media Centre, and with support from technology non-profit Meedan, the hub will be a resource for journalists, providing around-the-clock access to scientific expertise and research updates.

The initiative includes science media centers and public health experts from Latin America, Africa, Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific region, with content being made available in seven languages.”

Science Media Centres exist in a number of countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a reported mission to provide “high-quality” scientific information to journalists. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:⁵

“To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”

But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be, as it counts among its biggest funders a number of high-level industry players with worldwide agendas, including the Wellcome Trust, GlaskoSmithKline, CropLife International, Sanofi and AstraZeneca.⁶ To put it simply, as reported by the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) SMC promotes corporate views of science:⁷

"The Science Media Centre launched [in the U.K.] in 2002 in response to 'media frenzies over MMR, GM crops and animal research' to help news outlets better represent mainstream science, according to the SMC fact sheet. According to the group's fact sheet. In its [2002] founding report,⁸ the SMC was created to address:

SMC’s Power Over Media

Google’s partnership with SMC to provide COVID-19 vaccine information isn’t about real fact-finding and sharing the truth. It’s about parroting the company line and spreading propaganda to the masses — something they’ve been successful at in the past.

As noted by USRTK,⁹ “… The SMC model has been influential in shaping media coverage about science. A media analysis¹⁰ of U.K. papers in 2011 and 2012 found that a majority of reporters who used SMC services did not seek additional perspectives for their stories.” The analysis reviewed two of the services provided by SMC:

• “Roundups & rapid reactions,” which provide lists of “expert” statements in the relevant field directly to journalists
• “Briefings,” which provide expert opinions on scientific events for use by the media

The case study used for the analysis was a study of paralyzed rats that learned to walk again after the stimulation of neurons. The majority of news articles (60%) that covered SMC’s briefings did not use an independent non-SMC source.

Among news articles that used SMC’s expert reactions, 23% did not use an independent source, and of the rest that did, only 32% included external sources that offered an opposing view to the one provided by SMC.

The analysis concluded that there are “more journalists than there should be” that are relying solely on SMC information instead of consulting independent sources.¹¹ Still, SMC claims it is objective and nonbiased because it caps donations from any one institution at 5% of annual income (the Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) are exceptions, contributing over the 5% upper limit).¹²

But how much independence is truly retained when so much of the funding comes from different companies and front groups within the same industries? Their panel of "experts" represent the funding industries’ agendas and are not providing the media with objective academic feedback. In short, SMC has one agenda, and that is to infiltrate you with corporate propaganda.

SMC’s Political Clout

SMC’s political influence is also concerning. “In 2007,” USRTK reported, “SMC stopped a proposed ban on human/animal hybrid embryos with its media campaign to shift coverage from ethical concerns to the benefits of embryos as a research tool …"¹³ At the time, the U.K. government was planning to ban human/animal hybrid embryos after public consultations revealed ethical concerns, but SMC changed that. As Nature reported:¹⁴

“Perhaps the biggest criticism of [SMC director Fiona] Fox and the SMC is that they push science too aggressively — acting more as a PR agency than as a source of accurate science information. In December 2006, for example, the UK government indicated that it planned to ban scientists from creating hybrid embryos containing cells from humans and other animals.

… Researchers, funders and scientific societies organized a campaign to change the government’s mind. The SMC coordinated the media outreach, hosting five briefings at which scientists played down ethical qualms and said that hybrid embryos were a valuable research tool that might lead to disease treatments.

The resulting media coverage reflected those views, according to an analysis of the campaign’s effectiveness commissioned by the SMC and other campaign supporters.

More than 60% of the sources in stories written by science and health reporters — the ones targeted by the SMC — supported the research, and only one-quarter of sources opposed to it. By contrast, journalists who had not been targeted by the SMC spoke to fewer supportive scientists and more opponents.

The SMC was ‘largely responsible for turning the tide of coverage on human–animal hybrid embryos,’ says Andy Williams, a media researcher at the University of Cardiff, UK, who carried out the analysis … But Williams now worries that the SMC efforts led reporters to give too much deference to scientists, and that it stifled debate. It was a strategic triumph in media relations,’ he says.”

‘It’s a Really Dangerous Thing’

Google and SMC are pulling out all the stops to censor COVID-19 related information, especially that surrounding vaccines. In addition to the SMC-led COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub, Google states they’re conducting research to find out “what kinds of formats, headlines and sources are most effective in correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and whether fact checks that follow these best practices impact willingness to get vaccinated.”¹⁵

This blatant censorship under the guise of “fact checking” has been going on for months. For instance, Google’s June 2019 update effectively removed Mercola.com from Google search results. Our referenced content has been at the top of health search results for over 15 years, but now when entering a health-related search word into Google, you will no longer find Mercola.com articles in the search results.

The only way to locate Mercola articles is by adding “Mercola.com” to the search word(s) in question. If undesirable pages don’t vanish automatically in the new algorithm, Google’s quality raters will manually manipulate crowdsourced relevance to bury the page or pages. The same occurs in regard to COVID-19 vaccine information. Data that contradict or question the status quo are buried, while the official narrative is pushed to the top.

Now, with SMC further controlling the media by sending out talking points to journalists on COVID-19, it’s further limiting the type of real scientific debate that’s necessary to protect public health and health freedom. Ian Sample, The Guardian’s science editor, explained one such example to Nature.¹⁶

In 2013, he had a short deadline to report a story on a tornado that struck in Oklahoma. He received three emails from SMC that day, containing tornado facts and comments from 11 researchers, “many addressing the controversial link between extreme weather and global warming.” He was happy to have the “help,” working the information into the story in order to meet the deadline. “That information was really handy,” he said.¹⁷ However, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Despite its convenience, relying on “facts” from an industry front group will skew real science. “It’s a really dangerous thing and an easy thing for journalists to start relying on SMC comments,” Sample said. “We should be picking who we’re talking to and picking which questions we’re asking.”

Connie St. Louis, director of the science journalism course at City University, London, agreed. As one of SMC’s noted critics, she told Nature¹⁸ that SMC was “fueling a culture of churnalism,” and since journalists began relying on SMC briefings instead of finding their own information “the quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered.”

Where Can You Find the Truth?

Efforts to shut down public discussions about health information are in full force. So what can you do? Knowledge truly is power, so look beyond fact-checkers’ labels and the top of Google’s canned search results — and the corporations behind them — in your search for truth. I also recommend boycotting Google by avoiding any and all Google products. Tips for achieving this follow:

• Stop using Google search engines. Alternatives include DuckDuckGo and Startpage
• Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices. From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy
• If you have a Gmail account, try a non-Google email service such as ProtonMail, an encrypted email service based in Switzerland
• Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives¹⁹
• If you're a student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts

from Articles https://ift.tt/3bm4Fso
via IFTTT

I've written many articles detailing the roles vitamin D plays in COVID-19, from how it can help prevent initial infection, to how it can reduce your risk of complications and death. One of the reasons I've been pushing for vitamin D optimization as a way to minimize the risks associated with this infection is because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

British Health Authorities Disparage Vitamin D Claims

British health authorities, however, disagree.¹ According to new COVID-19 guidance² from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), there's insufficient evidence to support the recommendation to take oral vitamin D for the sole reason of preventing or treating COVID-19.

With that, they are backtracking on previous recommendations issued by British health officials who, in November 2020, urged people to take supplemental vitamin D this winter to reduce their risk of respiratory infections, including COVID-19.³

What's more, while the new guidance does urge Britons to take a vitamin D supplement between October and March, it only recommends a dose of 400 IUs a day, which is easily 10 times lower than what most people would require for general health and immune function.

While the panel agreed low vitamin D was associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes, they claim it's impossible to confirm causality due to inconsistencies between the studies (such as dosing, setting, populations, duration and definitions of outcomes), and because vitamin D deficiency and severe COVID-19 share many of the same risk factors.

According to professor Ian Young, who chairs SACN, "This evidence review confirms that currently there is not enough available evidence to determine that there is a causal relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19."

However, if vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 share the same risk factors, wouldn't it make more sense to urge people to address their vitamin D deficiency instead of using this as a justification for why vitamin D supplementation cannot be recommended?

It's really hard to imagine that scientists with a genuine concern for public health would come out with this kind of guidance, especially when you consider that vitamin D supplementation — at whatever dosage required to get your blood level above 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) — won't make your health any worse. There's absolutely no downside to it.

Vitamin D Is Important for Optimal Immune Function

In the video above, Dr. Roger Seheult reviews how vitamin D works, and the benefits of vitamin D, both for respiratory infections in general and as it pertains to COVID-19.

Importantly, vitamin D is a steroid hormone that can pass through cellular membranes into the nucleus and controls the expression of genes. So, it's not just a mere vitamin required as a cofactor. It can actually modify how the cells in your body behave and function.

Vitamin D receptors are found in a large number of different tissues and cells, including your immune cells. This means vitamin D plays an important role in your immune function specifically. If vitamin D is lacking, your immune system will be impaired, which in turn makes you more susceptible to infections of all kinds. As noted by Seheult, vitamin D:

• Stimulates "the innate immune response, which provides frontline protection against infectious agents"
• Increases expression of antimicrobial peptides in your monocytes and neutrophils — both of which play important roles in COVID-19
• Enhances expression of an antimicrobial peptide called human cathelicidin, "which is of specific importance in host defenses against respiratory tract pathogens"

Vitamin D for COVID-19

While Seheult also reviews a number of studies looking at vitamin D in relation to respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific investigations have found:

How to Improve Your Vitamin D Absorption

The specific dosage required to maintain an optimal vitamin D level can vary widely from person to person depending on a variety of factors, including age and weight. Your gut health can also play an important role in how well you absorb the vitamin D you take, according to recent research.¹⁵

When you have a healthy gut, beneficial bacteria produce butyrate by breaking down dietary fiber. Butyrate, in turn, helps increase vitamin D, so the more butyrate you have, the more vitamin D your body can absorb.

Another factor that can influence your vitamin D absorption is your magnesium level.¹⁶ Magnesium is required for the conversion of vitamin D into its active form.^17,18,19,20 According to a scientific review^21,22 published in 2018, as many as 50% of Americans taking vitamin D supplements may not get significant benefit as the vitamin D simply gets stored in its inactive form, and the reason for this is because they have insufficient magnesium levels.

More recent research by GrassrootsHealth²³ shows you need 146% more vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) if you do not take supplemental magnesium, compared to taking your vitamin D with at least 400 mg of magnesium per day.

Your vitamin K2 intake can also affect your required vitamin D dosage. According to GrassrootsHealth,²⁴ "combined intake of both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2 has a greater effect on vitamin D levels than either individually," and "those taking both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2 have a higher vitamin D level for any given vitamin D intake amount than those taking either supplemental magnesium or vitamin K2 or neither."

Data²⁵ from nearly 3,000 individuals revealed 244% more oral vitamin D was required to get 50% of the population to achieve a vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) if they weren't concurrently also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.

Safeguard Your Immune System With Vitamin D

In summary, if you cannot get sufficient amounts of sun exposure to maintain a vitamin D blood level of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) to 60 ng/mL (150 nmol/L), a vitamin D3 supplement is highly recommended. Just remember that the most important factor here is your blood level, not the dose, so before you start, get tested so you know your baseline.

This will help you determine your ideal dose, as it can vary widely from person to person. Also remember that you can minimize your vitamin D requirement by making sure you're also getting enough magnesium and vitamin K2. I'm convinced optimizing your vitamin D can go a long way toward minimizing your chances of contracting a respiratory infection, be it the common cold, seasonal influenza or COVID-19.

If you live in the northern hemisphere, now is the time to check your vitamin D level and start taking action to raise it if you're below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L). Experts recommend a vitamin D level between 40 and 60 ng/mL (100 to 150 nmol/L).

An easy and cost-effective way of measuring your vitamin D level is to order GrassrootsHealth's vitamin D testing kit. Also, if you haven't already visited www.stopcovidcold.com please do so now so you can take your free COVID risk test and grab a free PDF copy of my vitamin D report.

Once you know your current vitamin D level, use the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D calculator²⁶ to determine how much vitamin D you might need to reach your target level. Retest your vitamin D level in three to four months to make sure you've reached your target level. If you have, then you're taking the correct dosage. If you're still low (or have reached a level above 80 ng/mL), you'll need to adjust your dosage accordingly and retest again in another three to four months.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2MOUXVl
via IFTTT